An Evaluation Of An Innovative Curriculum: The Benefits And Challenges Of Implementing A Museum Learning Curriculum In A High School.

Author(s):

Richard Harris(presenting / submitting)Deb Heighes(presenting)Gill Hopper Melanie Jay Ellie Francis-Brophy

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 04 A, Curriculum, Innovation and Assessment

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

09:00-10:30

Room:

B110 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Wilmad Kuiper

Contribution

Educational reform and within that debates about the curriculum are a major feature in most European educational systems (Sivesind, van den Akker and Rosenmund 2012). The nature of the curriculum, whether it is a body of knowledge to be transmitted, a product, process or praxis are important debates, and there has been a recent renewal in such debates (Gardner 2007, Young 2008). Within England, such debates have been renewed with a review of the National Curriculum, as well as new freedoms for some schools to experiment with their curricula. This paper is an evaluation of an innovative curriculum, and therefore raises interesting issues about the nature and implementation of new curricula.

The curriculum investigated here centres on museum learning (ML). The literature shows that there are considerable learning benefits associated with engagement with museums and the educational value of museums for schools (Foreman-Peck and Travers 2013, Hooper-Greenhill 2007). However existing research focuses more on the visitor experience to museums (Hooper-Greenhill and Moussouri 2001, 2002). Little is known about ML undertaken with the school context (Eckhoff 2011).

ML is at the heart of Greenfield’s¹ school curriculum. The school’s curriculum is unusual and was only possible because the school acquired academy school status in 2004, and received sponsorship from a philanthropic organisation, which was inspired by the Brooklyn Museum School in New York. The sponsors do have a large say in shaping the ethos of the school, and in this case the intention was to promote ML in an area of socio-economic deprivation, as a means of supporting the educational experiences of young people in secondary school, as well as providing a form of social and cultural capital to enhance young people’s lives in the short and long term. The promotion of ML is also reflected in the design of the school building, which includes several large display areas, which include complete dinosaur skeletons and a small aircraft. To support ML further the school employs two full-time members of staff who have a background in museum education (rather than a teaching background). The school provides an unusual model to examine, in terms of what can be achieved through such an approach, plus an opportunity to explore the challenges of such an innovative curriculum.

The research team was contracted to conduct an evaluation of Greenfield’s ML curriculum between November 2012 and March 2013. The project was funded by the Arts Council England.

The overall aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which ML had become embedded in the school’s curriculum and to identify the factors which explain this level of embeddedness.

To examine these questions the evaluation focused on five areas:

Vision - What is ML and to what extent is there a shared vision?

Roles & structure - Who is involved, what is their role, how are these carried out?

Learning - How embedded is ML?

Teachers – What support is there for ML?

Broader Impact – What impact has ML had on student aspirations and the wider community?

Curriculum theory provides part of the theoretical framework for this evaluation, in particular Stenhouse’s (1975) idea of curriculum as process. Some schools in England, including the study school, are using new found freedoms to experiment with different curriculum models; in this case ML is seen as offering a process based curriculum. In addition the study draws upon work based around the implementation of change and the challenges of introducing change (e.g. Fenwick 2003, Korthagen et al 2001).

Method

A range of data was collected from teachers, students, museums, parents and senior staff in school. The sampling was largely opportunistic, being dependent on availability of staff and students, but steps were taken to ensure a range of teachers and students were included. Most data were collected from staff and students, and were primarily qualitative. All qualitative data were coded to create key theme categories and to consider the relationship between the data (triangulation of methods and considering difference and similarities between stakeholders). Staff interviews Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, another with a member of the senior leadership team, one with a member of staff whose role was entirely focused on ML and one with the head of a museum, with which the school had close ties. These interviews covered all five areas outlined above. Students Views of students were obtained through focus groups; a thought-cloud activity, a photo diary and lesson observations. These data covered areas 1, 3 and 5 mentioned above. Focus groups were held with between 4-8 students from four different age groups (11-12, 13-14, 15-16 and 17-18). A photo-diary exercise was completed by four students in two age groups (12-13 and 16-17). Students were asked to walk around the school and take up to ten photos of what ML means to them and to then be able to discuss with a member of the research team why they selected each photo. The thought-cloud was undertaken by two tutor groups (mixed age groups, n=41). Students were instructed to fill in the thought and speech bubbles of two students in a cartoon. Again only a brief instruction was given to students – they could focus on any aspect of ML that they considered most important or worth writing about (e.g. defining it, examples of trips, ways to use objects in class etc.) Four of the research team were able to observe a number of classes in different year groups covering and also observed student movement/flow and activities in the school’s museum display areas. An assembly during ML Week and a class observation of a ML poetry workshop in school were also observed. Parents An online questionnaire was developed for parents’, although only 18 parents completed it during the research period (all at school at an evening parent/teacher meeting). The focus for parents was in areas 3 and 5.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis of the data reveals a positive attitude towards ML from most students and about half the staff interviewed. However a number of issues were highlighted which hinder the successful implementation of ML within the curriculum.. 1. Vision The staff work with different conceptions of ML, making it difficult to appreciate what contributes to ML. Most students recognize this inconsistency, but felt that ML was valuable. 2. Roles & structure Most teachers were unclear about the roles of the two staff employed to support ML. Within the school structure it was not clear what power these two staff held. Students could join a museum council and a museum club, but participation was low and few students felt they had a voice in developing ML. Other issues emerged over the ownership of display spaces, what went into them, who decided and how frequently they needed to change. 3. Learning Most students saw ML as a process. Most students thought ML helped them to become independent, inquiring thinkers and learners. Improved confidence and self-esteem were seen by parents, teachers and ML staff when students were able to take the lead on their learning or the direction of a ML project. Although many teachers felt ML was beneficial, they cited a number of obstacles to its implementation. Students could cite many occasions when ML was not successfully incorporated into lessons. 4. Teachers Teachers were split between those who mentioned receiving ML training and those who did not. Of those who had received training there was some variation about the level and regularity. Those who said they had not received ML training were largely unaware of the types of ML happening in other classrooms. 5. Broader Impact Few examples were found about the broader impact of ML.

References

Eckhoff, A. (2011) Transformative Partnerships: Designing School: Based Visual Arts Outreach Programmes. International Journal of Art & Design Education 30 (2): 256-65. Fenwick, T. J. (2003) The 'Good' Teacher in a Neo-Liberal Risk Society: A Foucaultian Analysis of Professional Growth Plans. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35 (3): 335-54. Foreman-Peck, L., and Travers, K. (2013) What Is Distinctive About Museum Pedagogy and How Can Museums Best Support Learning in Schools? An Action Research Inquiry into the Practice of Three Regional Museums. Educational Action Research 21 (1): 28-41. Gardner, H. (2007) Five Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Hooper-Greenhill, E. and Moussouri, T. (2000) Researching Learning in Museums and Galleries 1990-1999: A Bibliographic Review. Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. Hooper-Greenhill, E. and Moussouri, T. (2001) Visitors' Interpretive Strategies at Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery. Research Centre for Museums and Galleries and University of Leicester. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B. and Wubbels, T. (2001) Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Sivesind,K., van den Akker, J. & Rosenmund, M. (2012) Editorial. The European Curriculum: restructuring and renewal. European Educational Research Journal 11 (3): 320–327. Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Young, M. (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back In. Abingdon: Routledge.